I think the Biblical phrase 'the Lord hardened pharaoh's heart' has to be taken at face value. Not that God forced pharaoh to disbelieve against his will, but God could have given pharaoh the grace to believe, and he deliberately chose not to do that. Why did he choose not to do so? Because it gave God the opportunity to display his power to the Israelites, if pharaoh had believed Moses, there never would have been a parting of the Red Sea or the establishment of the feast of Passover.

St. Paul discusses this at length in the epistle to the Romans, even going so far as to say that God creates some vessels for dishonorable use and some for honorable use. At fact value, that sounds a lot like God deliberately damns people to hell just for giggles. That isn't quite what St. Paul meant, but if you're going to be like The Jack and go for the ostensible 'plain meaning' of the text, it seems difficult to avoid that conclusion.

Literally every single person who has ever been lost could have been saved if God had chosen to give them the grace to be saved, but he intentionally chose not to do that.

Doom is (sigh) correct. The phrasing of the last paragraph is off a little in that God does offer all adults (prescinding from the question of unbaptized persons below the age of reason) grace sufficient to bring about conversion absent a sinful inclination away from the use of that grace.

Post subject: Re: Is Salvation received when you truly believe? never lost

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:28 pm

Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 amPosts: 828
Religion: Catholic

Quote:

Light of the East Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:40 am I have been trying to "fly under the radar" so to speak and avoid conflict here, since many here are long-time friends and all are good people, but since you pushed the button, I am tired of hiding. I'm praying about leaving for Holy Orthodoxy. Several of my friends have and I have come to understand the reasons why they have. If this concerns you, then your duty to me as a fellow believer is to prove to me that such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Merit, Indulgences, etc, existed before the lamentable schism of 1054AD.

As you apparently do not know the real teaching of the Catholic Church, it is high time to learn and believe. As the faith and mind of Christ are made clear by His institution of primacy and infallibility in faith and morals in His chosen leader St Peter and his successors, so everything that is orthodox (faithful and universal) depends on that fact. Muddying the waters by expressing dissent against this fact and Magisterial teaching, by various opinions (theological or otherwise) distorts the essence of the message.

Fr Brian Harrison:"....many Orthodox theologians and bishops have now severely qualified or even surrendered any serious claim to infallibility on the part of their Church. Also, there is no longer any unity, any identifiable “official” position of Orthodoxy as such, in regard to unnatural methods of birth control. Some authorities continue to reprobate these practices, while others – probably the majority by now – condone them. Increasingly, Orthodox married couples are advised just to follow their own conscience on this issue.

"....in recent decades, with more extensive cultural and ecumenical contacts, and with an increasingly large and active Eastern diaspora in Western countries, Orthodoxy’s underlying vulnerability to the same liberal and secularizing tendencies in faith, morals and worship that have devastated the West is becoming more apparent. That virus – an inevitable result of breaking communion with the visible ‘Rock’ of truth and unity constituted by the See of Peter – is now inexorably prodding Orthodoxy toward doctrinal pluralism and disintegration." http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html

St. Paul says also, "through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10)." The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

Christ’s Church that teaches the angels is denigrated – a type described by Christ as a “heathen and a publican” for not listening to Christ’s Church, and a dissenter places himself above Christ while ignoring St Paul's testimony. Such is the domain of selfists, heretics and outcasts. What's genuine about that?

As you apparently do not know the real teaching of the Catholic Church, it is high time to learn and believe. As the faith and mind of Christ are made clear by His institution of primacy and infallibility in faith and morals in His chosen leader St Peter and his successors, so everything that is orthodox (faithful and universal) depends on that fact. Muddying the waters by expressing dissent against this fact and Magisterial teaching, by various opinions (theological or otherwise) distorts the essence of the message.

I am learning. That is why I am starting to have some serious questions. I am beginning to understand the difference between the Eastern and Western anthropological views and how they two have differing views of soteriology and eschatology. It was one thing for me to be in a kind of Roman mental ghetto without any Orthodox input, but starting with the things I learned at seminary, I have been increasingly developing questions about Western theology.

Fr Brian Harrison:"....many Orthodox theologians and bishops have now severely qualified or even surrendered any serious claim to infallibility on the part of their Church. Also, there is no longer any unity, any identifiable “official” position of Orthodoxy as such, in regard to unnatural methods of birth control. Some authorities continue to reprobate these practices, while others – probably the majority by now – condone them. Increasingly, Orthodox married couples are advised just to follow their own conscience on this issue.

What does this have to do with the insertion of the filioque into the Creed? You mention that we are to listen to the Church, but the Church (that is, a universal and eccumenical council to decide this) was never consulted about this. Rome just did it. How do you justify that, especially monkeying with the Creed of all things.

"....in recent decades, with more extensive cultural and ecumenical contacts, and with an increasingly large and active Eastern diaspora in Western countries, Orthodoxy’s underlying vulnerability to the same liberal and secularizing tendencies in faith, morals and worship that have devastated the West is becoming more apparent. That virus – an inevitable result of breaking communion with the visible ‘Rock’ of truth and unity constituted by the See of Peter – is now inexorably prodding Orthodoxy toward doctrinal pluralism and disintegration." http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html

This sounds like an attack on Orthodoxy based on moral degeneration of the Orthodox Church and her members. Now.....do you really want to go down that path?

St. Paul says also, "through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10)." The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

Which leads to another thing I am pondering - is the Church really divided? David Bentley Hart wrote an interesting article called The Myth of Schism. When I look at both Churches, I see the same Sacraments, the same apostolic succession, both have a number of saints, holy men and women, and incorruptibles. Both have miraculous events from the Holy Virgin Mary. It makes me wonder if the Church really isn't still one and there are just points of heterodoxy which separate us. That's another thing I am pondering.

Christ’s Church that teaches the angels is denigrated – a type described by Christ as a “heathen and a publican” for not listening to Christ’s Church, and a dissenter places himself above Christ while ignoring St Paul's testimony. Such is the domain of selfists, heretics and outcasts. What's genuine about that?

And as I said, Rome didn't listen to the Church or even consult the Church in regards to changing the Creed? Does that apply also?

Which again I also find interesting t consider when the Church approved a dogma which even a doctor of the Church denied. It is also interesting that the Eastern Churches who are in communion with Rome are not required to adhere to the Roman Catechism. The Ukrainian Catholic Church has its own book, and in checking some things, I note that certain dogmas of Rome are conspicuously absent. Yet we are in communion with Rome, and more than that, our Patriarch, His Holiness Sviatoslav, stated that the UGCC is "Orthodox in praxis, teaching, and doctrine" If this is so, that means that the UGCC does not agree with the Roman Church on all points of dogma.

I have no idea where this is all going, but right now, I am in a sort of nether world regarding what I actually should believe and where I should be.

I think the Biblical phrase 'the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart' has to be taken at face value. Not that God forced pharaoh to disbelieve against his will, but God could have given pharaoh the grace to believe, and he deliberately chose not to do that. Why did he choose not to do so? Because it gave God the opportunity to display his power to the Israelites if pharaoh had believed Moses, there never would have been a parting of the Red Sea or the establishment of the feast of Passover.

Another "why" to me would be that God knew that Pharaoh would never possess to the disposition to accept that grace in any regard, so to offer it would be an utter waste AND that God used that to show forth His power.

The problem with that is that makes pharaoh in charge and God only reacting to what he does, this ultimately means that we can save ourselves with our own efforts. It's ultimately Peligian.

Again, I don't know how you derive that conclusion because God's omniscience precedes Pharaoh's reaction.

He's no more "reacting" to Pharaoh than He "reacts" to Mary's fiat or that He "reacted" to Eve, and then Adam, eating the fruit of the forbidden tree.

I'm not conceiving of God's omniscience as something that depends on events in time. It's not like you or I anticipating someone's opinion or action, such as "if I do this, they're going to do this, then I'll respond by doing that."

I'm not conceiving of God's omniscience as something that depends on events in time. It's not like you or I anticipating someone's opinion or action, such as "if I do this, they're going to do this, then I'll respond by doing that."

Can you elaborate? Because that certainly sounds like what you're saying.

I'm not conceiving of God's omniscience as something that depends on events in time. It's not like you or I anticipating someone's opinion or action, such as "if I do this, they're going to do this, then I'll respond by doing that."

Can you elaborate? Because that certainly sounds like what you're saying.

For example,(and correct me if I'm wrong)when God "answers" prayers, it's not as if we're changing God's mind or that He's altering His Providential Will to line up in accord with those prayers. Rather our prayers, in fact all prayers, and all free will choices, from all people of all times, are just a few of the innumerable points in which God ordered/orders all of the events in time from His ever-present "now" of eternity.

"Anticipation" on a merely human level, implies the possibility that we're mistaken in what we might foreknow. That would not be omniscience because it would mean that there is some external barrier to God knowing. I'm not saying that Pharaoh could have acted otherwise but chose not to, and that therefore God had to react to that behavior.

I'm saying the exact opppsite: that Pharaoh's hardness of heart was caused by God both by His Providential Will in general and by God's presence in Moses in particular. That his hardened heart was the only possible result, and that God is merely informing Moses of this.

Post subject: Re: Is Salvation received when you truly believe? never lost

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:49 am

Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 amPosts: 828
Religion: Catholic

Quote:

Light of the East Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:25 pm “the insertion of the filioque into the Creed… the Church (a universal and eccumenical council to decide this) was never consulted about this. Rome just did it. How do you justify that”

As the great Fr John a Hardon, S.J., points out “the Latin Fathers preferred…’from the father and from the Son’…” But “by the ninth century some Greek Orthodox leaders were saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.” What is obvious, is that the Latin formula leaves “no doubt about the perfect equality in divine nature of the three Persons of the Trinity.” [The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday & Co., 1975, p 65].

Quote:

When I look at both Churches, I see the same Sacraments, the same apostolic succession,

There is the Latin Rite, and the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church with the same dogma and doctrine; naturally, all of these are in union with the See of Peter and assent to Papal Supremacy. Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Holy See (e.g. Chaldean, Syrian, Maronite, Coptic, Armenian, and Byzantine rites) naturally require assent to all dogmas and doctrines.

The Orthodox Churches have broken with the See of Peter since 1054, and are individualistic among themselves. Since "legitimacy" means "lawfulness by virtue of being authorized", it is hardly reasonable to assume that the Orthodox Church has the same legitimacy as the Catholic Church in the mind of Christ, who gave His authority to Peter and his successors to teach, sanctify and rule, if Peter's authority is not recognised, for his supreme authority has been shown in the N.T.

“787. Apart from their rejection of Papal Infallibility, has purity of doctrine from the Catholic point of view been maintained by the Eastern Orthodox Churches?Not entirely. Besides denying Papal Infallibility they would, of course, deny Papal Supremacy. They grant that the Pope has a primacy of honour, but not that he has supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church. They deny, also, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as regards her exemption from original sin, although holding that she was ever personally sinless. In cases even of a valid marriage they permit divorce and remarriage. Other differences could be regarded as belonging to the area of non-essentials. Meantime, what the Catholic Church does recognise in the Eastern Orthodox Churches is the validity of their priestly ordinations; the legitimacy of their Eastern liturgical rites which are much the same as those in Eastern Rite Catholic Churches; and their general affinity of outlook with the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals. Needless to say, they are much nearer to the Catholic Church than any of the forms of Western Protestantism.” http://www.radioreplies.info/radio-repl ... t=15&n=787

I'm saying the exact opppsite: that Pharaoh's hardness of heart was caused by God both by His Providential Will in general and by God's presence in Moses in particular. That his hardened heart was the only possible result, and that God is merely informing Moses of this.

But how does that square with this?

Quote:

Another "why" to me would be that God knew that Pharaoh would never possess to the disposition to accept that grace in any regard, so to offer it would be an utter waste AND that God used that to show forth His power.

In this explanation, God is responding to the knowledge that Pharaoh will never possess the disposition to accept the grace. But the reason God knows that Pharaoh will not accept the grace is not founded in Pharaoh but in God, Who has willed not to give Pharaoh efficacious grace. It is a function of the Divine Will, not of the Divine Knowledge. Providence is founded on God's Will, not His Knowledge.

Light of the East Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:25 pm “the insertion of the filioque into the Creed… the Church (a universal and eccumenical council to decide this) was never consulted about this. Rome just did it. How do you justify that”

As the great Fr John a Hardon, S.J., points out “the Latin Fathers preferred…’from the father and from the Son’…” But “by the ninth century some Greek Orthodox leaders were saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.” What is obvious, is that the Latin formula leaves “no doubt about the perfect equality in divine nature of the three Persons of the Trinity.” [The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday & Co., 1975, p 65].

Quote:

When I look at both Churches, I see the same Sacraments, the same apostolic succession,

There is the Latin Rite, and the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church with the same dogma and doctrine; naturally, all of these are in union with the See of Peter and assent to Papal Supremacy. Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Holy See (e.g. Chaldean, Syrian, Maronite, Coptic, Armenian, and Byzantine rites) naturally require assent to all dogmas and doctrines.

The Orthodox Churches have broken with the See of Peter since 1054, and are individualistic among themselves. Since "legitimacy" means "lawfulness by virtue of being authorized", it is hardly reasonable to assume that the Orthodox Church has the same legitimacy as the Catholic Church in the mind of Christ, who gave His authority to Peter and his successors to teach, sanctify and rule, if Peter's authority is not recognised, for his supreme authority has been shown in the N.T.

“787. Apart from their rejection of Papal Infallibility, has purity of doctrine from the Catholic point of view been maintained by the Eastern Orthodox Churches?

IthinkNot entirely. Besides denying Papal Infallibility they would, of course, deny Papal Supremacy. They grant that the Pope has a primacy of honour, but not that he has supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church. They deny, also, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as regards her exemption from original sin, although holding that she was ever personally sinless. In cases even of a valid marriage they permit divorce and remarriage. Other differences could be regarded as belonging to the area of non-essentials. Meantime, what the Catholic Church does recognise in the Eastern Orthodox Churches is the validity of their priestly ordinations; the legitimacy of their Eastern liturgical rites which are much the same as those in Eastern Rite Catholic Churches; and their general affinity of outlook with the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals. Needless to say, they are much nearer to the Catholic Church than any of the forms of Western Protestantism.” http://www.radioreplies.info/radio-repl ... t=15&n=787

After thinking about this discussion this morning, I think it would be prudent to move the rest of this discussion and other discussions to another thread in a private room away from visitors. I will start a thread with your post in the Lyceum and answer it there.

The question I see is whether or not a one-time profession of faith is enough for a person to be numbered among the Elect. Or is it something else?

Jesus said in John 5:24 "‘Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

"Very truly" He tells you they will not be judged! They have crossed over to eternal life.

Sounds very much like Romans 8. There is now no condemnation for those in Christ. We are more than conquerors. Neither the present nor the future can separate us.

And we see why that is possible in 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 "Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." God makes us stand firm, not ourselves! And, I see the word "guarantee". That's because it's God's Sovereign choice who He gives the gift of faith to, He deposits the Holy Spirit in them, and He holds them firm, guaranteeing what is to come. Jesus said He will lose none that the Father gives Him. Yep, there looks to be no question; genuine believers can not be lost because God holds them firm.

John3:16My post, which is in apologetics, challenges the belief that salvation can be lost, to those who have been redeemed.

Such a view distorts Christ’s teaching. Unless and until you assent to the Sacred Scriptures, as given to us by Christ’s Catholic Church, and interpreted by Her, you will fail to understand the truths therein, particularly the truth that St Paul teaches: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12).

Only redemption has been accomplished by Christ, and we have to work out our salvation.

Philippians 2:13, the verse right after your quote, explains how that is done:

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed – not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence – continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose."

God works in us affecting our will and actions. That is how we work out our salvation, by His direct help. And that is the way He holds us firm in Christ!

It's just like Romans 8:5-9 says, we are controlled by the Holy Spirit if we are His: "Those who are dominated by the sinful nature think about sinful things, but those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit think about things that please the Spirit. So letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death. But letting the Spirit control your mind leads to life and peace. For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God’s laws, and it never will. That’s why those who are still under the control of their sinful nature can never please God. But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you."

Maybe its just me, but if OSAS was put into an image, that image would be of someone who has just had surgery to remove cancer from both of their lungs, yet who still sucks down a pack of cigarettes the day after because they've been "saved".

I'm sure you would agree if OSAS is true that your comment is insulting to God's Sovereignty. Do you believe Romans 8:28-35 says everyone God calls will be justified and will be glorified? What does that mean to you? It is the definition of OSAS! God intercedes for everyone He has saved, and no one can separate us!! "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all – how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

Jon Snow wrote:

And if we're to include sola fide in this image, the person never actually had the surgery, they merely received the promise of the surgery, which will take place some time later.

What does Romans 1:17 mean to you? "or in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed – a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’

Jon Snow wrote:

And do you think that the Scripture, with all the ink spilt over it's pages about avoiding evil and doing good works because they follow us, really teaches that such things have no bearing on our salvation.

Avoiding evil and doing good works are the tree bearing fruit, showing evidence of the Holy Spirit living in someone who is saved. But we see where believers are given their heavenly rewards, if everything they've done on top of the foundation of having faith in Jesus is burned up as unworthy motives and deeds, they still will be saved, but have a loss of rewards. So it's the foundation of faith in Jesus that saved them. The works will be rewarded in our heavenly home.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved – even though only as one escaping through the flames."

Post subject: Re: Is Salvation received when you truly believe? never lost

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:46 am

Sons of Thunder

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:30 amPosts: 7856Location: The carrefour of ignorance is bliss & knowledge is power.
Religion: The One with All the Marks.

walking4faith wrote:

... What does Romans 1:17 mean to you? "or in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed – a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’...

One more reason not to read the NIV. The Greek text (HERE) reads "out of belief into belief." The phrase "from first to last" is not in Romans 1:17.

In general, the NIV is astonishingly biased in favor of evangelical theology. The NIV's translations of Paul's epistles, in particular, are incredibly biased. Even NT Wright, an evangelical himself who has something of an anti-Catholic ax to grind, goes so far as to say of the NIV:

Quote:

“In this context, I must register one strong protest against one particular translation. When the New International Version was published in 1980 (sic), I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses. This contrasted so strongly with the then popular New English Bible, and promised such an advance over the then rather dated Revised Standard Version, that I recommended it to students and members of the congregation I was then serving. Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul’s letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. I do not know what version of Scripture they use at Dr. Piper’s church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.

This is a large claim, and I have made it good, line by line, in relation to Romans in my big commentary, which prints the NIV and the NRSV and then comments on the Greek in relation to both of them. Yes, the NRSV sometimes lets you down, too, but nowhere near as frequently or as badly as the NIV. And, yes, the NIV has now been replaced with newer adaptations in which some at least of the worst features have, I think, been at least modified. But there are many who, having made the switch to the NIV, are now stuck with reading Romans 3:21-26 like this:

“But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known…. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe…. [God] did this to demonstrate his justice… he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

In other words, “the righteousness of God” in Romans 3:21 is only allowed to mean “the righteous status which comes to people from God,” whereas the equivalent term in Romans 3:25 and Romans 3:26 clearly refers to God’s own righteousness – which is presumably why the NIV has translated it as “justice,” to avoid having the reader realize the deception. In the following paragraph, a similar telltale translation flaw occurs, to which again we shall return. In Romans 3:29, Paul introduces the question, “Is God the God of Jews only?” with the single-letter word e normally translated “or”; “Or is God the God of Jews only?” –in other words, if the statement of Romans 3:28 were to be challenged, it would look as though God were the God of Jews only. But the NIV, standing firmly in the tradition that sees no organic connection between justification by faith on the one hand and the inclusion of Gentiles within God’s people on the other, resists this clear implication by omitting the word altogether. Two straws in a clear and strong wind. And those blown along by this wind may well come to forget that they are reading a visibly and demonstrably flawed translation, and imagine that this is what Paul really said.” (N.T. Wright; Justification, pp. 51-53)

... What does Romans 1:17 mean to you? "or in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed – a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’...

One more reason not to read the NIV. The Greek text (HERE) reads "out of belief into belief." The phrase "from first to last" is not in Romans 1:17.

Okay, so you are saying the Greek text says "a righteousness that is out of belief into belief". Even from that, it doesn't sound like there is any requirement for righteousness other than belief. Reminds me of what the Apostle Paul answered the jailer when he asked what he must do to be saved, and he said to believe in the Lord Jesus and they would be saved (Acts 16:29-30).

Looking at other Romans 1:17 translations, King James Version says "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith"- not different than "from faith from first to last", IMO.

The NLT version: "This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith. As the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.”

CJB (Complete Jewish Bible): "For in it is revealed how God makes people righteous in his sight; and from beginning to end it is through trust — as the Tanakh puts it, “But the person who is righteous will live his life by trust.”